Discuss this story Discuss this story Print This Post Print This Post E-Mail This Article

Published on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 by TruthDig.com
A Farewell to the ‘Hillary Nutcracker’ and Other Obscenities
by Marie Cocco

As the Democratic nomination contest slouches toward a close, it’s time to take stock of what I will not miss.

I will not miss seeing advertisements for T-shirts that bear the slogan “Bros before Hos.” The shirts depict Barack Obama (the Bro) and Hillary Clinton (the Ho), and they are widely sold on the Internet.

I will not miss walking past airport concessions selling the Hillary Nutcracker, a device in which a pantsuit-clad Clinton doll opens her legs to reveal stainless steel thighs that, well, bust nuts. I won’t miss television and newspaper stories that make light of the novelty item.

I won’t miss episodes like the one in which the liberal radio personality Randi Rhodes called Clinton a “big f—in’ whore” and said the same about former vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro. Rhodes was appearing at an event sponsored by a San Francisco radio station, before an audience of appreciative Obama supporters-one of whom had promoted the evening on the presumptive Democratic nominee’s official campaign Web site.

I won’t miss Citizens United Not Timid (no acronym, please), an anti-Clinton group founded by Republican guru Roger Stone.

Political discourse will at last be free of jokes like this one, told last week by magician Penn Jillette on MSNBC: “Obama did great in February, and that’s because that was Black History Month. And now Hillary’s doing much better ’cause it’s White B—- Month, right?” Co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski rebuked Jillette.

I won’t miss political commentators (including National Public Radio political editor Ken Rudin and Andrew Sullivan, the columnist and blogger) who compare Clinton to the Glenn Close character in the movie “Fatal Attraction.” In the iconic 1987 film, Close played an independent New York woman who has an affair with a married man played by Michael Douglas. When the liaison ends, the jilted woman becomes a deranged, knife-wielding stalker who terrorizes the man’s blissful suburban family. Message: Psychopathic home-wrecker, be gone.

The airwaves will at last be free of comments that liken Clinton to a “she-devil” (Chris Matthews on MSNBC, who helpfully supplied an on-screen mockup of Clinton sprouting horns). Or those who offer that she’s “looking like everyone’s first wife standing outside a probate court” (Mike Barnicle, also on MSNBC).

But perhaps it is not wives who are so very problematic. Maybe it’s mothers. Because, after all, Clinton is more like “a scolding mother, talking down to a child” (Jack Cafferty on CNN).

When all other images fail, there is one other I will not miss. That is, the down-to-the-basics, simplest one: “White women are a problem, that’s — you know, we all live with that” (William Kristol of Fox News).

I won’t miss reading another treatise by a man or woman, of the left or right, who says that sexism has had not even a teeny-weeny bit of influence on the course of the Democratic campaign. To hint that sexism might possibly have had a minimal role is to play that risible “gender card.”

Most of all, I will not miss the silence.

I will not miss the deafening, depressing silence of Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean or other leading Democrats, who to my knowledge (with the exception of Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland) haven’t uttered a word of public outrage at the unrelenting, sex-based hate that has been hurled at a former first lady and two-term senator from New York. Among those holding their tongues are hundreds of Democrats for whom Clinton has campaigned and raised millions of dollars. Don Imus endured more public ire from the political class when he insulted the Rutgers University women’s basketball team.

Would the silence prevail if Obama’s likeness were put on a tap-dancing doll that was sold at airports? Would the media figures who dole out precious face time to these politicians be such pals if they’d compared Obama with a character in a blaxploitation film? And how would crude references to Obama’s sex organs play?

There are many reasons why Clinton is losing the nomination contest, some having to do with her strategic mistakes, others with the groundswell for “change.” But for all Clinton’s political blemishes, the darker stain that has been exposed is the hatred of women that is accepted as a part of our culture.

Discuss this story Discuss this story Print This Post Print This Post E-Mail This Article
89 Comments so far

1.
Eric J-D May 13th, 2008 12:44 pm

I’ll add the following:

I won’t miss reading through postings here at CD (supposedly a progressive website) and frequently encountering the words “whore” and “bitch” used to describe Clinton.
2.
Rich Griffin May 13th, 2008 1:00 pm

I hope Obama supporters abandon their idiotic attacks on Hillary Clinton. They have allready alienated too many of her supporters, and guess what? They need her supporters to have any chance in the fall! I’me expecting a McCain presidency (read Glenn Greenwald’s “Great American Hypocrites” chapter on McCain for WHY i think he will win). I’ve been so dispirited by the subliminal hatred towards women that has been spewed towards Hillary. (Katha Pollitt’s article about this in “30 Views Of Hillary” is spot on!). I won’t miss Randi Rhodes at all!
3.
Garvey May 13th, 2008 1:02 pm

Wow. I wasn’t aware of all the vitriol slung at Sen. Clinton. It is surely disgusting to see in the 21st Century (or any Century). I refuse to say ‘Farewell’ to such attitudes and actions; I saw “Good Riddance.”

That said, the bulk of this disgusting conduct is attributable to some of Sen. Obama’s supporters, sleazy online profiteers and sleazier journalists, not to Sen. Obama himself. Contrast that with the racialized and racist tone of Sen. Clinton’s campaign and one will see a glaring difference: she participated.
4.
arise257 May 13th, 2008 1:07 pm

Sorry, no sympathy from me towards Hillary. She’s a liar, full of excuses, and just as “inexperienced” as Obama. I think people feel the dishonesty and respond to it with “meh, just another bitch.” Sexist, you bet. 100% out of place? Nope.
5.
mairs May 13th, 2008 1:07 pm

I won’t miss Hillary, who inspired all those lowlife jokes, t-shirts, and effigies. Compare her behavior to ANY of the other candidates for the Democratic nomination. She would haven’t been the subject of any scorn if she had conducted herself as any of the other candidates did, as befitted her position as a United States Senator… male or female, as the wife of a beloved past president, and as a highly supported candidate for the presidency. But she didn’t comport herself with even half the class of her contemporaries. I don’t like the disrespect shown her by these items, but her working class constituents have the right to lover her, OR show their displeasure at her behavior by buying these things.
6.
RichM May 13th, 2008 1:09 pm

This article is shallow & trivial, taking aim at a much-too-easy target. Sure, it’s bad to hurl sex-based hate at Hillary. But that’s because there are so many more insightful & accurate ways to despise this loathesome creature. Her gender has nothing to do with it. It’s her Bush-like sense of entitlement, her sociopathic narcissism, her utter lack of principles, & her grasping ruthlessness — all characteristics she shares with her sleazebag husband.
7.
kelmer May 13th, 2008 1:11 pm

She isnt gone yet.
In fact if she somehow shuts up and Obama goes through and wins, she will surely be there on inauguration day claiming she actually won.

She is an embarrassment-and she brought much of it on herself. It was her campaign that became insulting.

Look how she wants the Michigan and Florida votes seated(she was against it before she was for it). Dean and the others should have cut her off at the knees earlier. I will bet she wont go out graciously. She will not tell her supporters to vote for Obama.
Bet.
8.
copygirl May 13th, 2008 1:21 pm

I started out this primary season as a Hillary supporter, but I have been repelled by the way she conducted her campaign. For years I felt she got a raw deal and was mystified by the level of animosity some people felt towards her. Now I’m thinking they saw something in her that I missed.
9.
copygirl May 13th, 2008 1:22 pm

P.S. that’s not to say much of the commentary quoted in the article is not sexist crap. It is.
10.
Vern May 13th, 2008 1:32 pm

I won’t miss women defending their gender exclusively at the expense of blindness to human decency.
African Americans support Obama because they have a candidate they can be proud of–they might not demonstrate the same enthusiasm for Condoleeza Rice or Clarence Thomas based on race alone. What do women have to feel pride in Hillary Clinton other than her gender and how does it advance women to rally around a woman who has behaved shamefully as a person? Clinton is always the victim for feminists–and always given a pass regarding her own race-baiting, sabre-rattling, willingness to lie and cheat. with great passion, I tell this author, that as a woman, Clinton disgusts me. She should be shamed– She is a monster and it is not because of her gender–that she exploits to get cover from women like you who don’t care whether Clinton is a woman worthy of other women’s respect.
11.
beartown beatnick May 13th, 2008 1:38 pm

It is unfortunate that when people reject Hillary, many of whom have valid reasons for doing so based on her own poor and often-times self-serving decisions, they are labeled sexists. In her case, it is not what is or is not between her legs but rather a perception she created that she doesn’t tell the truth (snipers), won’t make a hard political decision (Iraq vote), learn from her mistakes (Iran vote), and would rather remain married to a serial liar and philanderer for her political reasons than hold him to account. Take HRCs name and sex out of this for a moment, review the list of actions and decisions made and ask yourself if this is the stuff our president should be made of.

It is the individual, not her sex that is being rejected. By the way I didn’t even mention her choice of Mark Penn as campaign strategist or the appalling way she has played the race card.
12.
Eric J-D May 13th, 2008 1:50 pm

RichM wrote:

This article is shallow & trivial, taking aim at a much-too-easy target. Sure, it’s bad to hurl sex-based hate at Hillary. But that’s because there are so many more insightful & accurate ways to despise this loathesome creature. Her gender has nothing to do with it. It’s her Bush-like sense of entitlement, her sociopathic narcissism, her utter lack of principles, & her grasping ruthlessness — all characteristics she shares with her sleazebag husband.

While I agree that there are other grounds to object to HRC, I think you underestimate the extent of the sexism and misogyny directed at Clinton. Even your own description (HRC has a “Bush-like sense of entitlement,” displays “sociopathic narcissism,” and “grasping ruthlessness”) might be said to contain elements of that sexism.

Why does Bill Clinton seem (by and large) to escape such characterization? Why, for that matter, aren’t these familiar descriptions of George W. Bush?

You might say that they are–indeed, you say that these are characteristics she shares with Bill–but can you honestly say they form part of the dominant media narrative of who Bush is, or who Bill Clinton is? I don’t hear pundits endlessly talking about Bill the political whore, or George Bush the “sociopathic narcissist.” These characterizations seem to have a distinctly gendered component in the national political discourse.

So I think Cocco has a real point here, albeit a rather obvious one. I say that as someone who is not a supporter of HRC and as someone who is glad to see her run for the nomination coming to an end. The problem with HRC is that she embraces larely the same political philosophy as her husband (and I don’t simply mean that she uses the same campaign tactics). But as much as dislike and oppose that philosophy, I find it appalling that a considerable amount of the rhetorical framing of opposition to HRC has drawn on the language of sexism and misogyny.
13.
johnwyclif May 13th, 2008 1:52 pm

As usual…I’m torn between agreeing and disagreeing with the article. I’ve seen some of the tv incidents the writer mentions. The tv people likely sell a lot more soap that way than by presenting info on issues. I did see Brzezinski and Scarborough react to Teller’s Pontius Pilate imitation with a bit of class.

So, on the one hand, methinks the article is right in the sense that both race and gender were bound to be an undercurrent in a competition between Clinton and Obama. I think that her campaign has been caught out more in this.

On the other hand, this article reads to me sort of like, “Anybody who says Israel is doing bad things to Palestinians is an anti-semite.”
14.
Eric J-D May 13th, 2008 2:03 pm

Vern,

I don’t think you’re right that “Clinton is always the victim for feminists–and always given a pass regarding her own race-baiting, sabre-rattling, willingness to lie and cheat.”

I don’t see all feminists as making endless excuses for Clinton’s appalling behavior during the campaign.

Rather, I think the point here is this: Clinton’s candidacy has given focus and expression to some deep-seated misogyny in American culture.

The issue isn’t opposition to Clinton or criticism of her. Everyone is entitled to oppose Clinton as candidate or to be critical of her, whether it be for her policies, her political philosophy, or her conduct.

The issue is the form the opposition or criticism takes. I think Cocco is being quite accurate when she suggests that a major form that opposition to HRC has taken is in sexism and sometimes outright misogyny.

HRC might be all the things you say she is, but what the misgoynist discourse surrounding her suggests is that she is more than that; she has become a focus for an outpouring of sexism and misogyny that exceeds its opposition to her as an individual.
15.
alaskamaid May 13th, 2008 2:04 pm

I find the description of HRC as as ’scolding mother, talking down to her child’ to be pretty accurate. You don’t have to be a psychic to hear the manipulative, coercive quality of her voice, regardless of what she’s saying.

Hillary is down to playing her last card and she’s playing it for all it’s worth.

The mother guilt-tripping the child card. The ‘how can you reject me by not voting for me’ card. I have NO respect for women who guilt-trip their kids.
16.
5280 May 13th, 2008 2:07 pm

HC is a liar, a murderer and a republican. She needs to join her partner-in-crime Joe LIEberman on the dark side and be done with it.

Please GO!
17.
jareilly May 13th, 2008 2:08 pm

HRC campaigned and raised millions for other Dems? Actually the opposite is true. While in the White House, the Clintons basically destroyed the ground level Democratic party, ignored the states, ignored the party rank and file, ignored and de-funded the “little people” and surrounded themselves with aristocrats, hangers-on and creepy, self-promoting trash like Dick Morris. They laid mighty low in 04. When HRC clobbered her progressive opponent for her NY Senate seat, she had a war chest in the tens of millions, hardly necessary to beat the unknown Jonathan Tasini. She kept every penny and spent it on her Presidential campaign. Marie Cocco doesn’t like Howard Dean’s silence on sexist anti-HRC comments? Well maybe he should have said something, but since HRC and her circle have been doing absolutely everything they could to undermine him and his 50-state strategy, it’s not that hard to see why he might have been a little too busy with other matters to look up and object.

Good riddance HRC. Now let’s get some real feminists, some strong progressive women out there on the campaign trail to give women, progressives, feminists and the ever-increasing non-Clinton wing of the Dem Party someone worth fighting for.
18.
Vern May 13th, 2008 2:17 pm

I think, Eric J-D, that if the case were that Clinton was a honorable person, these charges might have some resonance, but as a woman, I am sorry, she disgusts me and doesn’t illicit a modicum of sympathy. You can not imagine the breath and the depth of my dislike of Hillary as a person. Maybe you should ask some of the women Ms Clinton’s husband used–women who Hillary sought to undermine and ruin–what their thoughts are on the matter of sexism.
19.
countess May 13th, 2008 2:40 pm

The real dark stain on this election is Hillary Clinton herself who came out of the closet as a neocon true believer and someone willing to stoop to anything to win even opening up racial wounds. She was a terrible candidate by any measure.
20.
kivals May 13th, 2008 2:55 pm

Valid scientific experiments isolate the phenomena to be studied (e.g. the independent variable) by controlling all other variables, and that way the results can be attributed to the effects of the phenomenon or phenomena under consideration. In the study of Hillary hatred, there are simply too many uncontrolled variables. She is a strong woman, but she is a pathological liar. She is intelligent and capable, but she is a panderer who treats voters like ignorant imbeciles. She is determined and indefatigable, but she changes positions by the day according to polls. She strongly supports women’s issues, but she stuck by an adulterous husband apparently for her own political ambitions. She talks like a true progressive, but often votes like a Republican.

So it is difficult to pin down precisely just why so many people despise Hillary, though it may be instructive in the future to see how the next strong woman who runs for president is treated.
21.
Lord Trigo May 13th, 2008 3:01 pm

I agree that there’s a lot of sexism in this country, and that this has been the worst media coverage of any campaign in my memory, but what turned me off to HRC was her record. She claims her years as First Lady as part of her political experience. Well, what exactly did the administration she was part of accomplish? The Defense of Marriage Act, stripping gays and lesbians of equal rights they deserve under our Constitution; Welfare Reform, which is coming back to bite us in the ass as the economy collapses; NAFTA, which undermined the wages of American workers; Most Favored trade status for China, ditto; and backpedaling on a woman’s right to choose. Hardly very progressive, if you ask me. Her Senate record isn’t much better. Granted, Obama doesn’t have as much baggage because he hasn’t been around as long, but if Hillary’s going to buy the ticket, she’s going to have to ride the ride. The Clinton presidency was the biggest hoax ever perpetuated on American progressives, and I for one am not going to get fooled again.
22.
luckylefty May 13th, 2008 3:04 pm

Wait till America starts on BHO, we ain’t seen nothin’ yet. This is not the ‘civilized’ country and we are not the ‘civilized’ people we pretend to be.

I ask myself if the monsters will figure out a way past the Secret Service to execute a hit? They got to Wellstone but he never had SS guards. Better question, why would they? He’s tied at the hip to Wall Street contributors, he’s going to keep the war going for another 4 years at least which means the arms merchants love him, and he’s going to pass all the costs of the richfilth crimes for the last 30 years onto us - as he shifts more of our jobs to slave labor pits around the globe. And the Repugs (because he’s a Dim) and Dims (because he’s an outsider) will both gang up on him in Office if he lives that long. Sounds like everybody wins, except us.

Pieces of 8.
23.
frank1569 May 13th, 2008 3:48 pm

Men don’t hate women - many do, however, resent them because, as the old saying goes:

So it is difficult to pin down precisely just why so many people despise Hillary, though it may be instructive in the future to see how the next strong woman who runs for president is treated

I’m inclined to think that finding some kind of metric that would locate the basis for the hatred of Hillary is a quixotic quest.

Narrative patterns, however, in popular and media discourse about a political candidate can be [NB: “can” not “will”] suggestive. And things like “Hillary nutcrackers” are pretty obviously appealing to a sexist characterization of Hillary as an emasculator. This is an image that shows up with some frequency in opinion pieces for mainstream newspapers like the New York Times. Just have a look at Maureen Dowd’s most recent piece on HRC where she write, “So how does Obama repay Hillary for running a campaign designed both to unman him and brand him as an unelectable black?” (emphasis mine)

A bit later she adds: “Hillary has a strange, unnerving effect on Obama, and whenever he is around her, he’s unable to do his best. Probably, it’s because she’s furious, always shaking his hand off her arm, ignoring him, giving him the evil eye and emasculating him” (emphasis mine).

I think one could produce plenty of other examples of pundits who trot out the specter of Emasculating Hillary and her Vagina Dentata, but you’d find it considerably more difficult to find male equivalents.

Again, it isn’t that Hillary ought to be defended, it’s the fact that obvious sexism is allowed to pass without comment or outrage.

Hillary’s a flawed candidate. I deeply believe that. But if you are at all interested in seeing more women enter political life, you can’t be thrilled by the fact that comments like these routinely pass for an analysis of her as a candidate.
25.
solrak May 13th, 2008 4:08 pm

I’m an American. I certainly don’t hate Hillary. I don’t know ANYONE who does. I must live in the real world where we are more accepting of people and diversity.

There are a lot of generalizations on C-D as of late, and it’s really become tedious reading these posts at times. I’m grateful for the others and learn a great deal from reading them.
28.
Mayari May 13th, 2008 4:17 pm

I’m a feminist, 10 years younger than Hillary. I have not been persuaded by the ‘orthodox’ feminists’ case for Hillary.

Obama is not my first choice as Democratic nominee, but he is my favorite now. I’ve been on the anybody-but-Clinton bandwagon since she announced her candidacy.

Why? Because I want a Democrat to win in November. Hillary has too much baggage, primarily her husband - the IMPEACHED former president! I think that returning the Clinton co-presidency to the White House, violating the spirit of the 22nd amendment by doing so, will be a big issue if she becomes the nominee.

Plus Hillary’s own sorry story that she was duped into voting for the Iraq War and her colossal failure in health care, the one big project she led while in the national spotlight. I’m truly amazed that she and her advisers ever seriously thought she could win the general election. I wish that she had chosen not to run.

I’ve never seen Hillary’s run for President as a feminist triumph. If she should win, what would that say to America’s little girls? You can grow up to be president, just find and marry a man who will be president first.

When a woman becomes President, I don’t want it to be a woman who has attained power by being the first lady.

In the early days of women winning public office, the first female senator or governor was sometimes referred to as ‘the first to win in her own right’. Other women had held the position, when appointed to it after the death of their husbands while in office.

If Senator Barbara Mikulski were running and a serious contender, she would be running (and winning!) 100% ‘in her own right’. I would indeed see her run as a feminist milestone. Not so much when it comes to Hillary. Though I want to make it clear, I’m not a Hillary hater and will vote for her if she’s the nominee, and I think she should be treated fairly.

In the harsh and brutal world of politics, I think she pretty much has been. People have said lots of harsh things — politics ain’t beanbag. I think she’s had a harder time because she’s a Clinton than because she’s a woman. There have been some really disgusting sexist crap said and sold, but not by the Obama campaign — rather, by people just trying to make a buck.

Senators Clinton and Obama have about the same experience holding public office — Clinton’s years as a U.S. senator and Obama’s years as an Illinois state senator/U.S. senator. Yet Clinton is trying to sell herself as the experienced candidate, based on her years as first lady. I’ve not bought it, myself.

I recognize she has seen and heard a lot by being in the White House and meeting all the world’s leaders. But when it comes to experience holding public office and leading the people of a state or nation, she and Obama are pretty similar.

Obama and Clinton have very similar positions on the issues — both are too pro-military-spending for me. I’m not expecting miracles from Obama.

I am now very enthused about supporting Obama because he does seem to inspire people to get up and do something — he has impressive grassroots volunteer support. Which will certainly be a big help in winning the general election. If he can inspire more and more people to become active, he can precipitate a wave of real change in this country. That’s the promise I see of an Obama administration.
29.
Bubbasouth May 13th, 2008 4:19 pm

We will have no nostalgia for those hideous, lying, self- aggrandizing parasites, Ma and Pa Clinton.
30.
CJM May 13th, 2008 4:35 pm

If the author hates all this stuff and will not miss it, why does she repeat it? (Some of it I had not heard.)

You said: “Senators Clinton and Obama have about the same experience holding public office — Clinton’s years as a U.S. senator and Obama’s years as an Illinois state senator/U.S. senator. Yet Clinton is trying to sell herself as the experienced candidate, based on her years as first lady.”

I think that this has been one of the real areas in which the Clinton campaign failed, at least strategically. The “change” narrative–the narrative the Obama campaign produced–quickly became a powerful rhetorical force within the electoral field that translated into a string of victories for Obama.

Clinton (and her campaign staff) failed to fully appreciate the force of this narrative and continued to run on her “experience” platform, not realizing that in a new climate in which the rhetoric of “change” predominated, “experience” was something of a liability (since it positioned her as an insider and as a trusted and familiar brand rather than as a novelty).

I think there’s obviously much more to both her failures and Obama’s successes than that, but this definitely had a deleterious effect on her campaign.
32.
Rich Griffin May 13th, 2008 4:48 pm

Obama supporters have missed by point: bashing Clinton is going to hurt YOUR candidate in the fall! If enough of her supporters sit out the election or vote for McCain instead, it will be enough to deny Obama the Presidency. I don’t want him (or McCain) to win, for all the reasons I know Obama supporters refuse to look at and be honest about, but it does not make sense to continue to demonize her!

also, STOP calling me racist! I’m voting for a BLACK WOMAN in November (Cynthia McKinney). I get real tired of the old “if you dislike Obama, you must be racist” crap. I studied his books, his speeches, his policy positions, his character - and don’t believe he should be President. That is all.
33.
otto756 May 13th, 2008 5:00 pm

Here’s another couple things I won’t miss:
Hillary’s camp sending out pictures of Obama in “Muslim looking” garb. Hillary jumping on the Rev. Wright smear campaign bandwagon. Hillary reducing Obama’s whole life to “a speech in 2004.” Hillary lying and moving the goalposts on the Florida and Michigan primaries.

I’m down on her because she voted for the war and won’t admit that was a huge mistake!

I’m down on her because she voted for war on Iran and is in favor of “obliterating” Iran! That’s called genocide for those of you keeping score.

I was a big Bill Clinton fan and I have always supported Hillary until this election. Now I see them both as mean-spirited professional politicians who will do anything to win, even if it means lying, cheating, and mud slinging.

Did I mention that she got fooled by George W. Bush into voting for the illegal Iraq war and won’t admit that it was a huge mistake?!?
34.
barely human May 13th, 2008 5:06 pm

Which is worse, racism or sexism?
35.
william street May 13th, 2008 5:27 pm

What on earth makes anyone think that these vile obscenities will go? They will continue to be slung at Mrs Clinton, of course, as her Democrat haters have proved themselves to be both crude and vicious in their pursuit of their prey. But they have also proved that misogyny is a viable way to undermine women who attempt to fight as equals in political contests. The despicable silence of Democats has damaged the chances of all women to succeed, for all will now be framed in the same language when they dare, if they dare, to put their heads above the parapet. When Obama mania recedes, then Democrats will have to deal with the fundamental damage they have done to the fight for women’s rights. And I suspect they will not want to: that the misogyny is engrained and they will slink off, thinking: “Job well done!” and sneering and leering at the “hos” who had the temerity to try to fight for women’s rights.
38.
opeluboy May 13th, 2008 6:30 pm

Absolute, utter, nauseating bullshit.

I can think of several female politicians and world leaders who are widely admired, almost idolized. They are seldom ridiculed by any but the most pathetic among us.

Clinton’s problems are not due to misogyny on our part, but to her own goddamn actions. She is an amoral, warmongering pig. She is a liar. She is a panderer. Now she is acting as a racist. She has the arrogance of entitlement, the smarmy attitude of superiority that simply begs for comeuppance.

What part of this do you not get, Ms Coco?

“Strategic mistakes” and the “groundswell for ‘change’” are not the reasons for attacks on Hillary Clinton. It is her overwhelming lack of character.
39.
Eric J-D May 13th, 2008 6:35 pm

opeluboy,

Clinton is a liar, a panderer and someone who has engaged in race-baiting throughout this campaign. I’ll grant you all those things.

But the characterization of her as a whore, a witch, a bitch, an emasculator, a shrew, a school-marm, etc. etc. preceded this campaign and will outlast it.

Cocco is drawing attention to the form opposition to Clinton has taken.

Do you see nothing misgynist or sexist about mainstream media pundits engaging in such characterizations? Is calling her a bitch and an emasculator fair game simply because she happens to lack integrity as a candidate?
40.
riddimboy May 13th, 2008 7:03 pm

EricJ-D — “Even your own description (HRC has a “Bush-like sense of entitlement,” displays “sociopathic narcissism,” and “grasping ruthlessness”) might be said to contain elements of that sexism.”

And how might that be ? Ive re-read RichM’s statement multiple times and I cant figure out how you can claim there is an element of sexism unless you display similar ‘grasping’ tendencies as Hillary.

Comparing Hillary to Bush and Cheney is valid as she has on numerous occasions made her positions very clear and they have more in common with the Bush&Dick crowd than the average Democrat.

Hillary is not a feminist by any stretch of imagination. She is a woman and thats that. If you really feel you need to help elect a woman to office then please cast your vote (like i intend to) for Cynthia McKinney who happens to be a woman AND black … and helluva lot more progressive than Hillary or Obama put together.

I do not condone the sexist tirade against Hillary (mostly by right-wing opportunists) but someone who can blithely obliterate 70 million people in a heartbeat deserves to be shot in the head.
41.
rebelnow May 13th, 2008 7:26 pm

So, a redneck, a black guy and a woman walk into a bar owned by a jew…..oh sorry, wrong website.
42.
wsws.org website May 13th, 2008 7:38 pm

I’m continually amazed that many people, especially feminists, see Hillary Clintonn as a positive female role model.

If Hillary had any self-respect as a woman, as a wife and/or as a mother, she would have left her philandering husband 20 years ago.

So why didn’t she? Answer: she stayed hitched to the gravy train because Ms. Glick is as power hungry as her husband Sammy.

In short, “what makes Sammy run” is what makes Hillary run — an addiction to power. A singularly unattractive characteristic in either of the sexes.

Hillary Clinton has been getting a free pass from a great many so-called progressive for years now. I mean, why should it be surprising that a power-driven politician — now losing at this point — would start talking about “obliterating” millions of people? Hillary Clinton is no more a feminist, nor does she deserve the support of feminist-progressives than would Eva Peron or Margaret Thatcher or … Lizzie Borden. Lizzie limited herself to a hatchet, Hillary and her ilk prefer nukes.
43.
Eric J-D May 13th, 2008 7:40 pm

riddimboy,

I never suggested that HRC is a feminist. That would be you projecting. Projection probably also explains your description of HRC as “someone who can blithely obliterate 70 million people in a heartbeat”–a fantasy of your own making I imagine.

And before you respond with, “but she said on Good Morning America that she…” don’t bother, we all know. I admit that I place very little stock in such macho posturing even though I deplore the fact that it is done. Questions like these are setups by the MSM to give mainstream candidates an opportunity to do their best Dirty Harry impersonations and little else. That don’t give me any real window into whether or not a candidate is actually inclined to use military force or not.

All the mainstream candidates do this because they understand the expectations placed on them.

As for the sexism issue, it lies in the fact that women with political ambitions are more likely to be criticized for their ruthlessness when they engage in tactics that might otherwise seem unobjectionable if practiced by a male candidate.

You can deny this if you like, but here’s a question: how regularly have you heard a male politician described as “grasping” and “ruthless”? What’s the male equivalent of being a “bitch” or an “emasculator”? How many male politicians do you know who are described by MSM pundits in those terms?

Hillary is a highly problematic candidate, I’ll grant you that. And I’m glad that her candidacy is coming to an end (I’m not so sure I’m excited by Obama, but that’s because I see him, like HRC, as etremely moderate and my own political views are quite far from what passes even for the “left” in this country).

I won’t vote for McKinney because there is no real gain to be had from it. I know the arguments about getting funding for the Green Party for the next election cycle, etc. but the Green Party has its own internal issues that it needs to sort out and until it does that I’m not terribly interested in throwing my vote its way. I also don’t see McKinney sticking with the Greens any more than Ralph Nader did.

So while I share your objection to HRC’s rightward drift, I don’t see it as justifying the truly vile sexism that has been directed against her. Object to her politics and to her campaign behavior (I certainly do), but if you (I mean this generaically, not you “riddimboy”) find yourself (as Maureen Dowd seems to do almost weekly) obsessively describing her as Hillary the Emasculator, Hillary the Whore, perhaps a little self-reflection on your sexism is in order.

to wsws.org: yep, possessing a vagina, breasts, uterus, ovaries and the like doesn’t make you a feminist. In other news, sun rises in the east.
44.
opeluboy May 13th, 2008 7:44 pm

Eric J-D,

No, I do not condone the sexist attacks on Clinton. My point was that these attacks are not due (in the most part) to her sex, but her own actions and personality.

Yes, Clinton has been taking this sort of heat for a long time, but I can think of many female politicians who do not receive this sort of treatment.

There is a reason, and it is not gender, even though the insults may embody that sort of feeling.

Ann Coulter draws a lot of hate speech, much of it gender-based. There aren’t too many of us who wonder why.

And I have to give the best Clinton insult to Jon Stewart, who seeing a very angry look on Hillary’s face, one time opined, “That look is the place hard-ons go to die.”

We all know Stewart is a misogynist.
45.
wsws.org website May 13th, 2008 8:12 pm

Here’s a question for feminist power brokers and feminisist pundits — WHERE’S THE OUTRAGE? If NOW, the National Organization for Women, has come out outraged and four-square against Hillary’s “obliterate Iran” remark, I haven’t heard it.

If Hillary wants to reap the benefits of what it means to run for president *as a woman* than where are the progressive feminist groups standing up for *progressive* values, one of which is not incinerating millions of men, women and children.

Where was Hillary when during her husband’s eight years in office hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians died as a direct result of US-led economic sanctions? Bill and Hillary Clinton — and anyone else who supports the American government’s foreign policy — are murderers. Being called names should be the least of their worries. More in order would be an international criminal court of law.
46.
robinea May 13th, 2008 9:21 pm

Hillary Clinton is a reactionary and would ruthlessly pursue policies supporting the interest of the militarist and financial elite who have supported her against the interests of tens of millions of working class Americans despite all of her phony populist phrases. Her racism is pure ‘Arkansas’ despite her more elite roots…when she claimed the loyalty of ‘working Americans, I mean hard-working Americans, white Americans’…whose interests, she announced, could not be served by Obama…
Well she may be right about Obama not representing the interests of working people (and not just the white ones she now claims to speak for)…she should know having worked against working people’s interests in order to promote the American military empire. Claiming she is a victim of sexism is a canard…what about the thousands of women and girls trafficked through the ‘liberated’,mafia-run Kosovo Clinton so ardently championed in her role as humanitarian ‘Bomb all the bridges in Belgrade’ imperialist? Or the widows and orphans her husband’s policies in Iraq created? Or the American single mothers thrown off state assistance and into dead-end jobs with no health care for their children - when her husband destroyed the welfare ’safety net’?
47.
heartlandheretic May 13th, 2008 9:23 pm

johnwyclif May 13th, 2008 1:52 pm
On the other hand, this article reads to me sort of like, “Anybody who says Israel is doing bad things to Palestinians is an anti-semite.”

never truer words-lol

“misogynist”- I’ve always kind of wondered why this word has no counter part for ‘a woman who hates all men’. I’ve known a few.

Hill, like George, deserves whatever she/they get(s). Two peas in a pod. I don’t like ANYONE who is a front runner. My choice is currently unemployed and about to lose his home. He might have a clue what it is like to be Uhmericun.
Moore-Alexander ‘08
48.
Mordechai Shiblikov May 13th, 2008 9:24 pm

Thank you jareilly for pointing that out. The point at which the cynical Clintons went over the cliff was not 1994 or Monica Lewinsky, but bringing in a political ghoul like Morris, a low cholesterol version of Karl Rove. Before that I thought Clinton was doing what he was doing (moving the Democrats to the right) so if and when the political worm ever turned, there would still be a viable Democratic party. Bringing in Morris, however, demonstrated that Clinton really was, in effect, a Reagan Democrat, a man who fed arsenic laced bread crumbs to the pigeons in the park. HRC lost the nomination because there are just enough registered Democrats who realize you can’t create such a thing as a Lite Republican party with less greed, homicide, piracy, ignorance and stupidity, yet still letting you rise from the table feeling refreshed and satisfied. Obama isn’t much better but he is not the political Dracula HRC is . . . and always will be.
49.
riddimboy May 13th, 2008 9:39 pm

ericJD your entire argument to support Hillary flounders on creaky, half-baked justifications. You are willing to pull out the ’sexist’ stick in a heartbeat but her racism is not an issue with you at all. You can easily justify her aggressive ‘warlike’ posture as posing for the media even though she willingly, without any debates voted for the Iraq and Afghan wars. You are not willing to support Cynthia because she cant win (so f__k voting your conscience). All these signs are symptomatic of what I call ‘Clinton Liberals’ - the wishy-washy, apathetic ‘Democ-rats’ who have managed to destroy the Democratic Party in the last 15 years.
50.
opeluboy May 13th, 2008 9:49 pm

We can argue all night, but no matter what we think of her the fact is Hillary is toast after Oregon.

I realize that Obama is not everyone’s first choice, but the guy has a brain and he uses it. Maybe if you aren’t already supporting him you would consider it?

Let’s call it a night. I sincerely wish all you CDer’s pleasant dreams.
52.
iammyself May 13th, 2008 11:07 pm

Rich Griffin,

Stop threatening us, will ya?

I don’t like the vile stuff either, but it’s gone both ways. I will vote for Obama because he is the best one standing, not because he is my first choice. I, and the rest of us who support Obama have been ridiculed and called Obamaniacs, so get off your high horse.

You’ve alluded to Clinton supporters going for McCain. If a few insults is all it takes for some Clinton supporters to go for McCain, then they were pretty damn close to it in the first place.

And hey, if Clinton wins the nomination, you and I may be voting for the same person!
53.
Siouxrose May 13th, 2008 11:20 pm

ERIC J-D: My hat is off to you, sir! You played the role of wise teacher in this debate and yet those attached to being right, never got it!

He is agreeing, fools! with all the things we dislike about Hilary. And here’s the part where the voice comes in to say, “Stop! You’re both right.” In that he is ALSO showing us how sexist the media has acted in response to her.

So there are 2 parallel tracks: Her record is terrible, nothing remotely pro-woman or feminist, nothing remotely HUMANE. Fine. That does NOT give permission, however, to speak of her in terms that demean her on the basis of her gender! The nut cracker IS a strong metaphor of just that.

Again, Eric J-D, you did a great job. I, for one, cut and paste EVERY one of your comments on this thread as you definitely SEE what’s going on. Some people are so caught up in only seeing what they see that they really can’t hear a message that validates their point of view while asking them to expand their thought process enough to SEE the bigger picture.

Its so sad to see this on CD. So many of you just don’t get it (thanks Eric J-D for getting it). Yes, HRC has flaws, yes she is ambitious (which presidential candidate isn’t?), yes she has not remained true to her roots in liberal social activism, but that is not the point.

The point is that its despicable to reach into the gutter of sexist stereotypes to describe her alleged character flaws. This whole business about “character” is largely media-manufactured crap anyway. If she were Jewish and everyone were reverting to anti-semitic stereotypes to decribe her alleged character flaws, please, please tell me that you would get it, right? If Don Imus had referred to Cynthia McKinney as a n—–h—– h- then please tell me you would NOT respond by saying “of course I hate racial stereotypes but she had it coming due to her behavior”?

Opeluboy writes

“I can think of several female politicians and world leaders who are widely admired, almost idolized. They are seldom ridiculed by any but the most pathetic among us.”

Opeluboy, please indulge me by naming SEVERAL American women with a national profile and a strong personality, women who run with the big dogs, and who are NOT subjected to sexist stereotypes of the same sort that HRC is forced to endure.

One name that comes to my mind is Condoleeza Rice. She also could be described as a warmonger and a liar (the character flaws that opeluboy attributes to HRC), to a far greater extent than HRC herself. Rice lies when millions of lives are at stake, and she apparently does it with a clear conscience. So, why isn’t Rice subjected to the same despicable stereotyping in the mass media? My hypothesis is that racial and sexist stereotyping is the stock-in-trade of Republicans, and Rice is not targeted because she is one of them.

But perhaps if you could provide some more examples we could resolve this issue.
56.
learnfromthepast May 14th, 2008 1:02 am

Thank you Marie for just the facts!
With dates/names/quotes Marie makes the case that Misogyny is socially acceptable (its even fun-ny) and Hillary is fair game because she is a ‘threatening’ intelligent woman, but we all know that racism is still hiding out in America’s kitchens and living rooms to be shared only in ‘private’ conversations.
The MSM has cheer-leaded the bush/neocon/Cheney abuse of 9-11 to invade Iraq and create this nightmare that is our present day America.and repeatedly vilified Hillary while proclaiming Obama the victor/savior since Iowa.

Do you believe the MSM now has America’s best interests at heart with their uncritical support of Obama?
Democrats/Progressives/Liberals should be wary!

The General Election is a more conservative election than the Democrat Primary - if Obama cannot win the WV, Ohio, PA, ‘working white’ vote it’s not because they are racist its because they are voters he can’t win over…. and I would not listen to the MSM about this one.

I will admit that while I like Obama’s speeches my vote is for Hillary only because I’ve become cynical of the MSM and the Entertainment-propaganda that only in America passes as news.
57.
riddimboy May 14th, 2008 2:31 am

The truth is Hillary supporters are more likely to be racist than Obama supporters are likely to be sexist.

Obama supporters (im not one of them … just a curious onlooker) tend to be more progressive and its fairly well established that if Hillary manages to clinch the nomination they would flood to either the Green party or to the Nader ticket, whereas Hillary supporters would stream into McCains arms !

The Republican right-wing attack (MSM=Republican, including the f__ing NY Times) on Hillary is sexist and definitely unacceptable and so is Hillary’s overt racist attacks on Obama.

This is really a reflection of our society. When women are elected to the highest office in remote, ‘under-developed’ states like Bangladesh and Sierra Leone (and ofcourse India and Pakistan) its simply amazing that the most ‘developed’ and highly advanced ‘civilized’ country in the world cannot do the same.

Our society, economy and politics is dominated by right-wing white males and instead of fighting them tooth and nail our great leader Hillary Clinton chose to enable them. Clearly this is the cause of all the hatred and bitterness on the Left.
58.
sLiMsHaDy May 14th, 2008 2:57 am

Thank you SO much, Eric J-D. I was at work on the 13th and therefore unable to participate in this “discussion” which is more akin to the climax of a shark or piranha feeding frenzy. It has been sickening!

He (Eric) and a couple of others have been able to expound upon Ms. Cocco’s salient points regarding the equivalent of the gang-banging that Sen. Clinton has been subjected to.

I have come to realize that the “progressive”/left wing/ et al community is FAR smaller than I had thought that it was when I found this site. My good God! There is this distinct realization that many of you would literally TEAR someone apart, limb from limb, because they do not meet your expectations of a perfect candidate. At least she tries to do something ~ what in HELL are you hate-mongers doing except bloviating your misogynist rants like shit volcanoes, and letting your true inner republican selves seep through for all the world to see?

You do Karl Rove’s work for him. You ensure that McSame will “win” in November. You demonstrate that you are EVERYTHING that you claim to hate about Hillary Clinton. Your reflection in a mirror is Ann Coulter. You have become what you claim you hate. You enable bush&co. You provide fuel to the flames of hell.

Thank you, Eric J-D (While I agree that there are other grounds to object to HRC, I think you underestimate the extent of the sexism and misogyny directed at Clinton.) Thank you, Souixrose (He is agreeing, fools! with all the things we dislike about Hilary. And here’s the part where the voice comes in to say, “Stop! You’re both right.” In that he is ALSO showing us how sexist the media has acted in response to her.) Thank you,fresh 1 (The point is that its despicable to reach into the gutter of sexist stereotypes to describe her alleged character flaws.) Thank you, learnfromthepast (Do you believe the MSM now has America’s best interests at heart with their uncritical support of Obama?
Democrats/Progressives/Liberals should be wary!) Voices of reason that rise above the cacophony of the lost and the losers.

UGH! I hope I can fall asleep now for awhile. The state of Amerikkka is not looking good.
59.
riddimboy May 14th, 2008 3:14 am

“UGH! I hope I can fall asleep now for awhile”

You should … whatever you are smoking cant be good. This is the same head-in-the-ass argument …if you are anti-israel you must be anti-semite … if you are anti-Hillary you must be pro-Ann Coulter .. that Hillary supporters have been vomitting all over this board.

“At least she tries to do something ”
Yeah sure … besides decapitating the Democratic Party and ‘blowing’ the Republicans there is not a whole lot that she has done. Now go to sleep .. it does a body good.
60.
sLiMsHaDy May 14th, 2008 3:26 am

Republicans, heads. Democrats, tails. One coin, under bush, with liberty and just-us for the rich.

And of course, you miss the point. It wasn’t about “her”.
61.
pundit May 14th, 2008 5:19 am

Wait until the MSM “discovers” that Barak Mohammed Hussein Obama is a MUSLIM!!!!!

Wait until the MSM “discovers” that BMHO is a BLACK MAN!!!!!

Buy yourself an Obama minstrel doll. Be first to read the latest study proving that black folks’ brains are 20% smaller than White Folks’.

So much fun and games until November!
62.
Donald May 14th, 2008 7:54 am

“While I agree that there are other grounds to object to HRC, I think you underestimate the extent of the sexism and misogyny directed at Clinton. Even your own description (HRC has a “Bush-like sense of entitlement,” displays “sociopathic narcissism,” and “grasping ruthlessness”) might be said to contain elements of that sexism.

Why does Bill Clinton seem (by and large) to escape such characterization? Why, for that matter, aren’t these familiar descriptions of George W. Bush?”

Bill Clinton was the target of unlimited forms of abuse on the right. And for that matter, on the left (where Bush is regularly attacked with equal vehemence). And I agree with much of it. And there’s no sexism in saying “Bush-like sense of entitlement”, “sociopathic narcissism” and “grasping ruthlessness”. You’d have to demonstrate that the person who typed those comments thinks these are characteristic of women, but unfortunately for your argument, the person who typed that went on to say that these were traits Hillary shares with her husband. That didn’t stop you from seeing it as sexist, which means you’re willing to project that accusation onto people’s words even when your accusation is refuted in the very words that you cite.

Some of the abuse aimed at Hillary Clinton is sexist, but much of it isn’t, and overall, she’s not really despised any more than her husband on either the right or the left.
63.
Vern May 14th, 2008 8:47 am

There is some sad irony in the fact that we are all asked to consider incidences of underlying sexism—which strikes me as little more than an extension of Clinton’s exploitation of shallow gender support–as political cover. Meanwhile she continues to propel herself by promoting the notion that Obama can’t win because he is unelectible based on race.
As far as I am concerned, the condemnation of the Clintons has not been harsh enough. In the greater scope of events, harping about sexist attitudes within the context of racial profiling is missing the forest for the trees.
The Clintons need to be tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail.
64.
Agi May 14th, 2008 9:29 am

For the past couple of weeks, I was amongst those Obama supporters who was trying to mend with Clinton supporters. I strongly believed that Clinton would, after WV, begin to prepare for a graceful and honorable exit which would be carried over the remaining contests. After all, Obama has almost secured the nomination as he leads Clinton by every single available metric.

With her speech in WV, Clinton clarified her position in regard to the rules of the Party. Before and after the primary, Clinton and her surrogates, went all the way in what should be rightfully called a disregard of the internal rule of law of the party. Basically claiming that the rules must be changed, that the millions of voters who have already voted don’t count, and that the elected pledged delegates don’t count either.

What seems to only count for Clinton is the popular vote of some but not all contests (after all many caucus states don’t divulge their numbers) and the superdelegates. This is because those are the two only metrics that she can hope to change in her favor.

While it is true that Clinton and her surrogates have stopped the direct attacks on Obama, they have not stopped (and actually increased) their attacks on the Party’s rules and regulations as well as the will of the majority of its voters thus far.

The Clintons and their surrogates keep moving the goalpost as they see fit and they must have a lot of clout within the upper echelons of the party since no one (where are you Howard Dean?) is telling them they should stop their extralegal attacks on the Party’s rules and regulations.

On Meet the Press last Sunday, talking about the FL and MI delegations, Terry McAuliffe said that “the rule is 50 percent” and that he would be content with 50% of the delegations from those states seated. Now, two days later, they want 100% of the delegates seated as is, even though Clinton herself said back in December, that these primaries “will count for nothing”.

Their rationale is that we need 50 states in November but they don’t seem to care about the fact that they might end up with 25 states if they keep pushing their unorthodox efforts and drive away a large chunk of Obama supporters in the process.

Since there is no logical explanation to Clinton’s refusal to play by the rules, the only possible explanation is that what we are witnessing is a pure and simple coup attempt by the Clintons and their surrogates. Now that they cannot win by the rules that they themselves have helped to lay out and that they have accepted at the beginning of the process, they feel it’s ok for them to demand that the rules be changed as they see fit in order to make the math work in their favor.

They now claim that they could win the popular vote but what they are not saying is that they are only referring to those states that hold primaries. Clinton knows very well that some caucus states don’t release their popular votes results so, while with one hand she acts as the champion of democratic voters by demanding that FL and MI be seated, on the other hand she is openly trying to disenfranchise the voters of those states where caucuses are held.

Clinton has already passed the point of no return by openly declaring that the number of delegates needed to win the nomination (2,025) is null and void and that the new number should be 2,By doing so, she has done great damage to the integrity of the primary process. Clinton and her surrogates have clearly espoused the belief that the end justifies the means and they will not stop their attempts to win the nomination at all costs.

And so we find ourselves in this Orwellian land of double speak where Clinton pretends to be the champion of democracy and the popular vote while she’s openly and directly undermining the democratic process since her only path to the nomination is for the superdelegates to overturn the the will of the pledged delegates.

Clinton has taken a very dangerous route because if she believes that the Obama supporters will sit idly by and let her destroy the integrity of the process she’s highly mistaken. This was supposed to be the year of the Democrats, the year when the people throw out the Rupublicans because of all their failed policies. Istead, because of the thirst for power of one person we are more and more likely to witness a civil war within the party that will cripple it for years to come.

Way to go Mrs. Clinton.
65.
ticonderoga May 14th, 2008 10:04 am

Misogyny? I don’t think you can lay the blame on that at all. I don’t like Hillary because she won’t vote to ban cluster bombs, not because she’s a woman. In fact, I used to support her years ago in online debates on another site. Now I know better. Personally, I would love it if a woman could be elected President. I would love it if Cynthia McKinney was the woman running against Barack Obama. I’d vote for her in a heartbeat if she was. To tell you the truth, although many of the anti-Hillary slurs mentioned in this article were offensive, so was the article itself, with its assumption that the only reason why people dislike Hillary is because she’s a woman and they hate women.

I’ve got my own idea as to why Hillary inspires so much vitriol, and it’s not misogyny. Instead it’s disappointment and frustration because so many people expected so much more from her because she’s a woman, and she let them down. Lots of people expected her to run a high road campaign because they expected her to be more moral and spiritual and nurturing than male politicians are, and she wasn’t and isn’t. She is disliked by so many because so many, instead of being misogynistic, love women and were really looking forward to a President who could be kind and nurturing, as long as the President was a woman (people aren’t interested in a kind and nurturing male President - that’s too weird).

To make an off-the-wall analogy, after World War II a lot of returning American soldiers brought back with them Weimaraners, a breed of gun dog that was unknown in America at the time. The breed, when it first hit American shores, was touted as the gun dog to end all gun dogs: versatile, smart, tough and capable of outhunting any other breed of gun dog. Turned out, though, that although a perfectly good gun dog, the breed wasn’t any better than most other breeds, and not as good as some. So, in a knee-jerk reaction, the breed’s reputation was trashed and it quickly fell out of favor with hunters.

The same thing happened, I think, to Hillary: people expected her to be better because she’s a woman, and when she turned out not to be, they vilified her.
66.
Siouxrose May 14th, 2008 10:43 am

TICONDEROGA: Hillary’s POLICIES and PRINCIPLES deserve to be attacked, but sexist references are NOT the appropriate means to do so. These demonize all women and continue to thwart our struggle for poliical equality and economic justice, etc.

FRESH 1 and the 2:31 AM posting by RIDDIMBOY were also good ones.

And thanks SLIMSHADY for the affirmation!
67.
locust May 14th, 2008 10:48 am

Having read almost all of the postings here of what becomes another Dem-on-Dem shark frenzy, I can only say-

I called in January for a united Democratic party. I still do. America needs a hero to withdraw from the race for the greater good. That way, the Dems will unite by choice, not because one candidate ‘wins’ and the other ‘loses’.

America does not need the supporters of the two Dem candidates attackng each other.
That is only doing Rove’s job for him. It drives away the supporters of whichever candidate will ‘lose’.

Unity, not division. The Rethugs are in retreat, now is the time for reinforcing the attack, not continued infighting and squandering of America’s precious time.
68.
Bob K. May 14th, 2008 11:05 am

The article is correct. It’s publication by TruthDig and CD may indicate these sites are beginning to see the future, and are looking for excuses for their own roles in swiftboating Hillary.

I could only read the first several posts on this thread before being repulsed. People here who repeat the same sexist remarks the article deplores are not progressives, they are disgusting jerks.

And, justifying the sexism by blaming Hillary’s “behavior” during the campaign? Please. What behavior? Her accurate statement that LBJ was instrumental in passing Civil Rights legislation? It was Obama and the corporate media who twisted and race-baited. Ditto with Bill’s accurate analysis of the South Carolina primary when he said there has always been racial-affinity voting in South Carolina. Her misstatement about landing under sniper fire in Bosnia? The plane actually did land under threat of sniper fire. There’s no dispute about that. See the CBS News blog and the 1996 CBS News story about that trip (it’s on YouTube).

By the way, did you know that Hillary visited more than eighty countries in her official capacity of First Lady? Did you know that Obama has never visited Europe in any capacity? Not even as a private citizen?

It would be nice to read an article like the one above, but listing all the instances of swiftboating directed at Hillary that go far beyond simple sexism. That’s not likely to happen until after November, but it will be interesting to see whether CD excises the many complicit articles they’ve published here recently.
69.
OldRascal May 14th, 2008 11:39 am

And I won’t miss the hordes of sHillary supporters who can’t believe that anyone could dislike her - and what she stands for - for any reason other than the fact that she is a woman.

There are plenty of fine women - fine PEOPLE - in this country but sHillary is NOT one of them.

agi — you nailed it, it’s the “moving the goalposts as they see fit” aspect that is most disturbing

These types play by the “I get to make the rules, I get to change the rules, and I don’t have to tell you that the rules have changed” rule.

This works well for them but sort of sucks for the rest of us, who are necessarily always a step behind, trying to figure out what the rules have changed to.

The Clintons crave publicity, it doesn’t really seem to matter to them if its ‘good’ or ‘bad’ press, and Hillary knowingly put herself out there with all the considerable family baggage so why are people so upset about the natural and logical consequences of her candidacy ? She probably has a nutcracker doll on her night table. I wish she and sleazebag Bill would just quietly sail off into some distant sunset.
72.
Coyotita May 14th, 2008 1:53 pm

Ms. Cocco,

What we are seeing is the same kind of intimidation of opponents that the Bushies used. But that’s ok, if it comes from the Clintonites? Because what I’ve been hearing is that Obama brings out our best, while it is the wild-eyed Clinton supporters who are doing the dirty politics of old. Also, we are seeing the same kind of lying that has become the trademark of an administration and its supporters who keep telling us the tide has turned in Iraq, and other fables. So, please, be fair and recognize that Hillary Clinton is comfortable with old politics and is goading her supporters on.
73.
Coyotita May 14th, 2008 1:54 pm

… and by the way, to bring this to light is not playing gender politics, but telling the truth.
74.
riddimboy May 14th, 2008 2:15 pm

“By the way, did you know that Hillary visited more than eighty countries in her official capacity of First Lady?”

And all she could come up with after all those visits is a mad hankering to bomb them to pieces. She needs to keep her dick in her pants and not flash it around like every other right-wing white male.

Maybe not visiting Europe is a good thing … we already have them bending over when we have that ‘urge’ and they are more than willing to comply.

Entitlement Gone Awry just about sums up Hillary’s current situation, and to think she showed so much friggin promise at one time. Her ‘inner republican’ self couldn’t be contained any longer.

Im willing to bet half my net worth that all these rabid, screaming, finer-pointing Hillary supporters will never vote for Cynthia McKinney EVEN if she had a chance to win in Nov.
75.
rcarrace May 14th, 2008 3:54 pm

how else could you describe H. Clinton. Oh that’s right … they forgot hypocrite and fake. I can’t wait until that bitch is out of the picture. She is pathetic.
76.
rcarrace May 14th, 2008 4:02 pm

” gang-banging that Sen. Clinton ” Ooooo no … that is repulsive. Hillary naked and having sex? I think I’m going to be sick.
77.
mrraven500 May 14th, 2008 5:37 pm

If women don’t want to hear crude jokes about Hillary Clinton feminists MUST distance themselves from this particular woman who was on the board of Wal-mart, threatened to obliterate Iran, engaged in crude race baiting, and voted for the war nd has expressed no remorse over that wrong headed vote. To their credit some feminists have distanced themselves from Hillary, good for them, bravo thanks for supporting rights for ALL people and not just those of your gender. On the other hand if “feminists” hang with race baiting, war mongering slime like Hillary Clinton they ought not be surprised if they get slimed themselves. As Dr. King wisely said jude people by the content of their character not the color of their skin, or I would add gender sexual orientation, etc. If Ms. Clinton cannot adhere to that high standard she ought not be surprised when her opponents don’t either.
78.
mrraven500 May 14th, 2008 5:54 pm

Eric J-D the form of the attacks on Clinton have been so harsh for many (myself included) because she is such a tool of the ruling corporate oligarchy that she makes many of us VERY angry. The fact that I think Hillary Clinton is b*tch does not make me a sexist, for the candidate I would most want to see win is Cynthia McKinney. I sincerely wish I lived in a country smart enough to elect her, sigh.

If we are to be so paralyzed by p.c. speech codes that we can’t call a lying corporate tool like Hillary Clinton who hired Mark Penn that did p.r. for Monsanto a f*cking b*tch then we will never have more than .0000001% support from people outside the ivory tower.
79.
BrokenTop May 15th, 2008 1:39 am

I scanned down these posts and I have to wonder at the mentality of the posters. A lot of name calling, accusations of all sorts and hatred but no FACTS to substantiate the charges or epithets hurled about. The rantings of fools. Common Dreams has certainly degenerated.
80.
huzzah May 15th, 2008 1:41 am

“TICONDEROGA: Hillary’s POLICIES and PRINCIPLES deserve to be attacked, but sexist references are NOT the appropriate means to do so. These demonize all women and continue to thwart our struggle for poliical equality and economic justice, etc.”

Siouxrose, I agree. It’s just that my point was that, although sexist remarks have been the vehicle used to attack Hillary by a number of people, I don’t think that the basis for those remarks is necessarily the hatred of those people for women in general.

After all, there are plenty of sexist remarks directed toward George Bush on this site, ranging from statements that he’s a ball-less wonder to statements that he’s a testosterone-filled moron to etc. That doesn’t mean that the people making those statements dislike men in general; it just means that they dislike Bush and use language that they think will annoy him should he ever read what’s written on this site (yeah, I know: he doesn’t read).

Easiest way to insult a man is to say he acts like a woman and the easiest way to insult a woman is to say she acts like a man. It’s what people do. It’s much easier than focusing on the issues.
82.
Elderlady May 15th, 2008 7:31 am

I wasn’t even going to comment on Ms. Coco’s essay, until I saw this morning, that she has a similar column in the Washington Post.

The cold, hard facts are these: Mrs. Clinton was running for president of the United States. She ran as a war-mongering hawk. She didn’t run as a woman. Why should she have been treated any differently than any other war-mongering hawk, by a country of voters which is “war weary.” More that 65% of us think the war we are in is wrong, and have no stomach for another war with Iran.

I don’t think anyone attacked Mrs. Clinton simply because of her gender. What most of us really objected to was her policies. And, many said so.

To quote the woman herself: “If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.”
83.
Bob K. May 15th, 2008 9:45 am

BrokenTop,

I don’t think the people posting this gutter language here are truly progressives. I recognize the language and tactics: it’s Republican. It’s hate speech, lies, insinuations without facts, and repetitive propaganda.

It’s also classic Republican campaign tactics. If they pay people to make phone calls insinuating that the opposition has an illegitimate black child, if they pay them to distribute flyers announcing that Republicans vote on Tuesday and Democrats vote on Wednesday, it’s no stretch to imagine that they pay them to pose as progressives on a progressive web site.

I am a lifelong Democrat, but the woman-bashing, even in my own party, has been a shocker. I expected as much from the right wing, but the left? Clinton had a tremendous lead going into the contest. In my opinion, the misogyny directed at Clinton caused much of that lead to evaporate. It’s depressing for younger women, like myself, to know that, no matter how much more experienced you may be than the opposition, you can still lose due to unchecked ignorance.

And it’s not right wingers posing as progressives. There is a little of that. But Randi Rhodes, among others, is clearly on our side of the aisle and is a woman.

And NPR?

Come on. Democratic males (and some females) can be just as sexist or moreso than their GOP counterparts. And it leaves progressive women with nowhere to go, except Green, perhaps.
85.
Bob K. May 15th, 2008 10:37 am

Elspeth,

I agree. But, I distinguish between mainstream Democrats and progressives. And, if Randi Rhodes considers herself a progressive . . . I beg to differ. Ditto with NPR.

I say that if you use hate speech you are not progressive, by definition. If you think you are, you’re delusional.
86.
hootowl May 15th, 2008 9:41 pm

If ya’ll are truly more offended at some crude humor directed at MS. Clinton compared to the terrible real physical damage to poor people by say slave labor in Chinese factories that outsource American workers jobs from her former employer Wal_Mart, or NAFTA passed on her husbands watch without a peep of protest from Hillary, or the million dead from the Iraq sanctions promoted by the Clintons, or the millions thrown in prison during the Clinton error, or the hundreds of thousands of acres cut under the Clintons salvage logging again without a peep from Hillary, then you value form over substance and you are the reason that we don’t have a strong left that actually fights to protect the weak, the downtrodden and our endangered planet.

And the reason for this? You are too busy being whiny NPResque language police to actually do the hard real work of supporting striking workers, of blocking logging roads, of blocking the port that weapons used for war crimes are shipped from. People like Hillary Clinton are vile c*nts for enabling and encouraging war crimes and for sitting on the board of the planet and labor destroying Wal-Mart and no I don’t feel like referring to her in a polite p.c. upper middle class tea party for fashion she deserves every sort of foul curse word that can possible be flung at her for betraying the working poor including women working for pennies an hour in places like Vietnam. Where are your priorities people that you can take a piece of capitalist distractionay upper middle class whining like the original article seriously at all?

Rather than worrying about whether women will crash through the glass ceiling how about doing the hard physical work to eliminate that sort of hierarchy for all people on the planet? Hint it may involve rough language from you know actual working people and gasp eeek scary guns, if you don’t believe me ask Chavez…

Here’s a hint if you go to a working class bar say near Michigan Ave. in Ypsilanti where I live (you know full of the actual downtrodden people we are supposed to be helping overcome oppression) and whine piteously about the “sexist” treatment Hillary Clinton is receiving you will be laughed out onto the street and mainly by African American working women to boot.

The reason fat junkies like Rush Limbaugh are winning is they at least PRETEND to talk to working people, and the denizens of a place like CD, we can’t even manage that much, which is sad. It’s called being out of touch, it was sad when Bush I was too out of touch to run his groceries over a bar code scanner in a check out line, and it’s sad many of us here would be too prissy and p.c. to diss Hillary in a way working people would understand at a bar. Think about it PLEASE, it’s important if we want to actually start winning again.
87.
hootowl May 15th, 2008 9:45 pm

p.s. to the moderators if seeing the c word fully spelled out is too much for your delicate sensibilities to handle I submitted a second version chastely clothed much like John Ashcroft’s shirt thrown on a statue. Please delete the first one down the memory hold and thanks for prioritizing form over substance.
For prioritizing form over substance as in the original article by Marie Coco is surely how we will win victories for the downtrodden, right?
88.
riddimboy May 16th, 2008 1:33 am

Great post hootowl … dont worry about the moderators …they only pop up if you diss the zionists in israel … all else is fair game !
89.
hootowl May 16th, 2008 1:40 am

Actually my first version of this post DID get suspended in moderator limbo for calling Hillar a C U N T, this is the second version.

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

well, this is a thing to think about.
i can dig deeper for ten pages all by myself. that may shoot myself in the foot AND waste my time by overwhelming people or giving them
the idea that i mean to go solo.

So what should i do?

Things reverse from my leadership to yours. The ball is in your court now, not mine.

the problem is, do you get the game or must i play alone still to demonstrate it?

This is complicated.

I have my own good answers for many of these issues. But merely standing on a soapbox doesn't make a great invitation to chat.

So heres me, with a shot in the arm which is a dead end if more people can't embrace this turn and run with it.

Heres one conversation which can mean almost nothing and fade into history, or, which can start the revolution if you will let it.

well, so what can i say? Here i am, talking to myself. I get used it its most of what i end up doing. thoughts drift to what i could do.
I could explore the good and bad in both platforms. I could run google searches to link to more info per plank. I could more fully introduce
other peoples ideas, such as kucinich, gravel, ron paul, ralph nader, and etc.

I could go to yahoo and post questions to their q and a. not that they ever give good answers to high order questions.

i definitely feel sad for her.
Compassion is the cure.
The reason why shes not the best pick is that shes too long in the trenches, and like any good soldier, its slowly taken its toll on her.
Plus people on our side don't have enough compassion for her or see her through the lens of her pain and suffering, or how much it
would have meant for her or somebody else to break that glass ceiling.

The other word for facing futility and trying anyways is "Heroism". Seen through that lens, shes not grasping desperately, shes fighting the good
fight. I don't know how to get other people to see this the way i see it which i think is the only healthy way to see it for us to move on reconciliation.
Too much focus on her and everybody as people and not enough focus on their ideas or their problem solving process. And virtually no focus on
our own problem solving process, wrapped up in assorted political cults of personality.
No, you haven't let it go, and so whos got the neurosis?

What did you expect to happen?
A Cabbie once gave me a tidbit of wisdom which applies very powerfully to this. Be careful who you make into your enemy be cause that destines
you to become them. Polarizing against somebody makes you magentize towards their worst characteristics. Diabolizing somebody turns you into the demon
with a pitchfork. We all need to let go of this, and quit being polarized and quit seeing this as a competition between people and instead, a discussion
about how to solve our problems.

Hillary is playing at the mens game in a mens world. Sadly she didn't go with the strengths of the feminine gender and instead masculinized herself,
which in truth is the first betrayal which cost her in the end everything. Shes playing versus carl rove; when carl isn't even in the game any more.
But you would be to if you were the pity victim of the largest smear campaign in the history of the world.

Pe ople need to learn to see the good and the bad in everybody, including elected officials. Condemning hillary for being imperfect is senseless and mean.
If we held ordinary people to such standards, nobody would pass. If you let go of seeing her through the lens of propaganda warfare, she is just a person.
With a heart and soul, and dreams and fears and loves and yes, personal flaws. So have we all. And her dreams need not come at the expense of our dreams,
and her success need not come at the expense of our success. Or vice versa. Hating, pitying, or branding with names does not help you or her or society
to give up the disease of being mean to each other in order to solve our mutual problems. We are one world, with one hope, and all of us must sanely hinge
our hope with and upon each others. Hillary is every woman who ever wanted to break through that glass ceiling and every man who suffers in our society
because gender inequality dysfunctionalizes all of our relationships. Just as Obama offers us a chance to heal the divisions caused by racism and a hundred
years of republican politicization of racism to get people to vote for evil people, So does hillary stand for an equally important,... perhaps even more important
resolution of our bad deal with women, and our sweeping under the carpet of sexism. Well it hasn't gone away, and its gotten in some ways worse for
not being dealt with honestly.

Love is the answer, love is the key, love unlocks all of these doors. Polarization and hate only closes those doors. Branding her as crazy only locks both of you
in mental cages away from each other. Thats not a solution.

I have been an "anybody but Hillary" person long before the campaign began. I also have a sister and a niece who are HRC supporters, and I hope they will get over their dissapointment, And I do also hope they can somehow see the futility with which their candidate continues to grasp at, and how low that candidate can go.
----------
in a mans world, shes just playing the game which they play, better than they play it. Obama trumps her because hes playing a new game
by different rules. She could have learned this, she could have won this by evolving as a person rather than allowing herself to become the victim
and then the revenge machine. But blaming her for the negative game is silly when all she did was realize the true depth of how sinister the game is,
and allow herself the freedom to play that game as well as any man or better.
--------------

Already that candidate has cozied up to Richard Mellon Scaife, now she has become a desciple of Karl Rove.an't help

This really angers me,
-----------
it angers me to. for the same reasons. But what should we do about it?
-------------

but I hope I can contain that, and while I hold that anger against only HRC,
------
grow up. Quit being angry at people and choose to see the difference at being angry at their actions. If a two year old misbehaves, are you angry
at them, or at their behavior? Can you be adult enough to see the difference and to even more importantly, see hillary as the victim of her own
bad ideas, not a bad person, but a good person whos been through hell?
---------------

I do not to hold it against her supporters, unless they swallow her Kool-aid.
------------
There is no kool aid. Thats just mean spirited BS on both sides.
Theres just human beings, fallible and imperfect, choosing either race or gender around which to rally,
and choosing one problem solver over another due to their biases and imperfect propaganda driven process.
-----------

I frankly can't believe that many of them are proud of HRC's outreach to the Ultra-right Republicans to save her candidacy.
----------------
Its a cut throat game. Its chess. If she didn't play to win, she'd be giving in to her own better nature which had to be suspended to even
play the game in the first place.
Your attachments are blinding you to the hard nature of the game.
--------------

While I try to have a positive dialogue,
--------
You are still emotionally polarized, and so you are probably not going to have any success until you take a long hard look in the mirror...
and then LET IT GO.
------------

and am definitly for reconcilliation with HRC supporters, I can't help but believe that HRC has gone off the deep end,
----------
Of the deep end that our whole civilization went off of 100 years ago? If you are in over your head, it really doesn't matter how much deeper
you go. And if swimming across the ocean is the way to win, wouldn't you do whatever it took also?
------------

and cannot be trusted as an ally in the General Election.
------------
probably true. But we don't have to trust her. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
----------

I sincerely believe that she has a mental problem.
------------
I sincerely agree with you. Its called being hurt by a vicious and evil male dominated political system. Its called vengeance. And its what any human
being would feel and then do if they had been put through what she has been through.
So lets help her heal by fixing our system, so that 8 years from now, she can be electable in good conscience.

I also sincerely disagree. Half of this mental problem is your projection.
--------------

Well, there it is.
-----------------
Thank you for being honest and open about your feelings and the way you see it.
Thanks for having the courage and taking the time to contribute.
I hope that you will continue to work with us for real change.